Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A common pattern amongst cranks
329 views
Skip to first unread message
Python
Dec 21, 2019, 8:58:14 AM12/21/19
to
Recently I noticed that there is a common pattern amongst crank when it
comes to proofs and argument. It is about not being able to spot an
obvious hint that a proof cannot be correct: when they pretend to draw
a conclusion from a property which has nothing specific, a property that
is true for everything inside the considered domain.
John Gabriel pretend to draw conclusion about the derivative f' of
a given function f from the property that:
[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) (*)
But as ANY function p shares this property with f' (you just have
to define Q(x,h) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - p(x) to convince yourself) this
is definitely IMPOSSIBLE to end up with anything pertinent for f' from
equation (*).
Same with Professor (very sadly) Wolfgang Mueckenheim, who pretend to
conclude something from the fact that "xxx is a member of a finite set"
(xxx being either a end segment of N, a cardinal, whatever, he uses this
argument all the time). This is utterly stupid of course, as anything is
a member of a finite set in the first place: consider the set {anything}
This kind of hint who allows to spot that a proof is invalid from its
very first place is very useful, as well as another hint: if you haven't
used a key property of an kind of object - say a derivative - in a proof
of something supposed to be specific to this kind of object, it is very
very likely to be invalid. This is something I explain quite often to
students, and they absolutely get the point immediately.
Beside of their lack of ability and lack of integrity, this shows
clearly that at the root of their crankiness, both Gabriel and
Mueckenheim suffer a HUGE cognitive dissonance.
comes to proofs and argument. It is about not being able to spot an
obvious hint that a proof cannot be correct: when they pretend to draw
a conclusion from a property which has nothing specific, a property that
is true for everything inside the considered domain.
John Gabriel pretend to draw conclusion about the derivative f' of
a given function f from the property that:
[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) (*)
But as ANY function p shares this property with f' (you just have
to define Q(x,h) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - p(x) to convince yourself) this
is definitely IMPOSSIBLE to end up with anything pertinent for f' from
equation (*).
Same with Professor (very sadly) Wolfgang Mueckenheim, who pretend to
conclude something from the fact that "xxx is a member of a finite set"
(xxx being either a end segment of N, a cardinal, whatever, he uses this
argument all the time). This is utterly stupid of course, as anything is
a member of a finite set in the first place: consider the set {anything}
This kind of hint who allows to spot that a proof is invalid from its
very first place is very useful, as well as another hint: if you haven't
used a key property of an kind of object - say a derivative - in a proof
of something supposed to be specific to this kind of object, it is very
very likely to be invalid. This is something I explain quite often to
students, and they absolutely get the point immediately.
Beside of their lack of ability and lack of integrity, this shows
clearly that at the root of their crankiness, both Gabriel and
Mueckenheim suffer a HUGE cognitive dissonance.
Message has been deleted
konyberg
Dec 21, 2019, 9:17:10 AM12/21/19
to
Merry Christmas to all here on sci. math. !
KON
Eram semper recta
Dec 21, 2019, 10:04:34 AM12/21/19
to
On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:58:14 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> Recently I noticed that there is a common pattern amongst crank when it
> comes to proofs and argument. It is about not being able to spot an
> obvious hint that a proof cannot be correct: when they pretend to draw
> a conclusion from a property which has nothing specific, a property that
> is true for everything inside the considered domain.
>
> John Gabriel pretend to draw conclusion about the derivative f' of
> a given function f from the property that:
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) (*)
The problem with cranks like you is that you can't allow yourself to see any perspective outside your sand box.
> Recently I noticed that there is a common pattern amongst crank when it
> comes to proofs and argument. It is about not being able to spot an
> obvious hint that a proof cannot be correct: when they pretend to draw
> a conclusion from a property which has nothing specific, a property that
> is true for everything inside the considered domain.
>
> John Gabriel pretend to draw conclusion about the derivative f' of
> a given function f from the property that:
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) (*)
Of course I draw a conclusion about the derivative f' of a given function f from the property that [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) for very obvious reasons:
1. The first is one that you apparently never understood, i.e.
rise/run = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h
[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h is a SLOPE. Unlike your non delusional examples where you clearly demonstrate that you do not understand this concept, the difference between [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h and another slope (say f'(x)) will always be Q(x,h). This is not just the same as any difference as you claim between just any function and [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h.
>
> But as ANY function p shares this property with f' (you just have
> to define Q(x,h) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - p(x) to convince yourself)
> this is definitely IMPOSSIBLE to end up with anything pertinent for f' from
> equation (*).
Because [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h is a ***SLOPE FUNCTION***, you utter idiot!!!!!
>
> Same with Professor (very sadly) Wolfgang Mueckenheim, who pretend to
> conclude something from the fact that "xxx is a member of a finite set"
> (xxx being either a end segment of N, a cardinal, whatever, he uses this
> argument all the time). This is utterly stupid of course, as anything is
> a member of a finite set in the first place: consider the set {anything}
>
> This kind of hint who allows to spot that a proof is invalid from its
> very first place is very useful, as well as another hint: if you haven't
> used a key property of an kind of object - say a derivative - in a proof
> of something supposed to be specific to this kind of object, it is very
> very likely to be invalid. This is something I explain quite often to
> students, and they absolutely get the point immediately.
>
> Beside of their lack of ability and lack of integrity, this shows
> clearly that at the root of their crankiness, both Gabriel and
> Mueckenheim suffer a HUGE cognitive dissonance.
Eram semper recta
Dec 21, 2019, 10:08:26 AM12/21/19
to
[ f(x+42h)-f(x) ] / h and [f(x+h^2)-f(x)]/h
DO NOT describe SLOPES.
What part of this do you not understand you pitiful vile reptile?
Eram semper recta
Dec 21, 2019, 10:10:32 AM12/21/19
to
On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 10:04:34 AM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:58:14 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> > Recently I noticed that there is a common pattern amongst crank when it
> > comes to proofs and argument. It is about not being able to spot an
> > obvious hint that a proof cannot be correct: when they pretend to draw
> > a conclusion from a property which has nothing specific, a property that
> > is true for everything inside the considered domain.
> >
> > John Gabriel pretend to draw conclusion about the derivative f' of
> > a given function f from the property that:
> > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) (*)
>
> The problem with cranks like you is that you can't allow yourself to see any perspective outside your sand box.
>
> Of course I draw a conclusion about the derivative f' of a given function f from the property that [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) for very obvious reasons:
>
> 1. The first is one that you apparently never understood, i.e.
>
> rise/run = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h
>
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h is a SLOPE. Unlike your non delusional examples where you
Typo: should be "Unlike your delusional non-examples...".
> > Recently I noticed that there is a common pattern amongst crank when it
> > comes to proofs and argument. It is about not being able to spot an
> > obvious hint that a proof cannot be correct: when they pretend to draw
> > a conclusion from a property which has nothing specific, a property that
> > is true for everything inside the considered domain.
> >
> > John Gabriel pretend to draw conclusion about the derivative f' of
> > a given function f from the property that:
> > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) (*)
>
> The problem with cranks like you is that you can't allow yourself to see any perspective outside your sand box.
>
> Of course I draw a conclusion about the derivative f' of a given function f from the property that [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) for very obvious reasons:
>
> 1. The first is one that you apparently never understood, i.e.
>
> rise/run = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h
>
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h is a SLOPE. Unlike your non delusional examples where you
Eram semper recta
Dec 21, 2019, 10:11:58 AM12/21/19
to
Xmas is a bunch of crap that only morons the likes of you celebrate.
> KON
konyberg
Dec 21, 2019, 10:15:27 AM12/21/19
to
KON
Python
Dec 21, 2019, 10:24:26 AM12/21/19
to
John Gabriel, Eram semper recta wrote:
What a joke! I hope your students are reading this to see what a
buffoon you are.
>
> 2. Of course the difference between ANY function and [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h will have
> a remainder Q(x,h), but such a difference is MEANINGLESS unless that given function
> describes a SLOPE.
John, just stating it leads to NOTHING if do not actually use the
What a joke! I hope your students are reading this to see what a
buffoon you are.
>
> 2. Of course the difference between ANY function and [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h will have
> a remainder Q(x,h), but such a difference is MEANINGLESS unless that given function
> describes a SLOPE.
relevant property or a consequence of it. You are doing in reverse
exactly the same blunder as in your alleged "proof" of your idiotic
"new calculus".
But, as I explained, this is a HUGE cognitive dissonance on your part,
it is very very unlikely you'll ever get the point anyway.
Eram semper recta
Dec 21, 2019, 10:27:14 AM12/21/19
to
On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:58:14 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mainstream-academics-mentally-ill-john-gabriel
Say, do you even have the balls to try and debate me on LI? Unfortunately I would have to be civil with you because I don't wish to be kicked off LI. Truth is I will kick your arse so bad, your stupid head will be spinning for the rest of your life.
What da ya say Penis Messager? You up for it? Chuckle. The comments on my article are not censored. Come on asshole. Let's see what you've got. No one bothers with this shit heap because you dump all over it every day.
Sergio
Dec 21, 2019, 10:32:29 AM12/21/19
to
On 12/21/2019 7:58 AM, Python wrote:
> Recently I noticed that there is a common pattern amongst crank when it
> comes to proofs and argument. It is about not being able to spot an
> obvious hint that a proof cannot be correct: when they pretend to draw
> a conclusion from a property which has nothing specific, a property that
> is true for everything inside the considered domain.
>
> John Gabriel pretend to draw conclusion about the derivative f' of
> a given function f from the property that:
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) (*)
>
> But as ANY function p shares this property with f' (you just have
> to define Q(x,h) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - p(x) to convince yourself) this
> is definitely IMPOSSIBLE to end up with anything pertinent for f' from
> equation (*).
obviously JG equation is always in error unless h = 0 [it is still ill
> Recently I noticed that there is a common pattern amongst crank when it
> comes to proofs and argument. It is about not being able to spot an
> obvious hint that a proof cannot be correct: when they pretend to draw
> a conclusion from a property which has nothing specific, a property that
> is true for everything inside the considered domain.
>
> John Gabriel pretend to draw conclusion about the derivative f' of
> a given function f from the property that:
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) (*)
>
> But as ANY function p shares this property with f' (you just have
> to define Q(x,h) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - p(x) to convince yourself) this
> is definitely IMPOSSIBLE to end up with anything pertinent for f' from
> equation (*).
defined]
>
> Same with Professor (very sadly) Wolfgang Mueckenheim, who pretend to
> conclude something from the fact that "xxx is a member of a finite set"
> (xxx being either a end segment of N, a cardinal, whatever, he uses this
> argument all the time). This is utterly stupid of course, as anything is
> a member of a finite set in the first place: consider the set {anything}
>
> This kind of hint who allows to spot that a proof is invalid from its
> very first place is very useful, as well as another hint: if you haven't
> used a key property of an kind of object - say a derivative - in a proof
> of something supposed to be specific to this kind of object, it is very
> very likely to be invalid. This is something I explain quite often to
> students, and they absolutely get the point immediately.
>
> Beside of their lack of ability and lack of integrity, this shows
> clearly that at the root of their crankiness, both Gabriel and
> Mueckenheim suffer a HUGE cognitive dissonance.
>
stuff, they just state it, no proof, no tie in to math.
another item, JG uses foul language to support his conjectures, to fend
off discussion of his crankism
another item, typically cranks discuss very low level high school math,
and argue over well known, simple definitions, and defend their
stupidism. Not seriously, but for fun, and disparaging others.
JG is like a Twinkie that has been left open on the counter for years.
Eram semper recta
Dec 21, 2019, 10:32:48 AM12/21/19
to
On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 10:24:26 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> John Gabriel, Eram semper recta wrote:
> What a joke! I hope your students are reading this to see what a
> buffoon you are.
> >
> > 2. Of course the difference between ANY function and [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h will have
> > a remainder Q(x,h), but such a difference is MEANINGLESS unless that given function
> > describes a SLOPE.
>
> John,
It is Mr. Gabriel to you moron! I am not your friend.
> John Gabriel, Eram semper recta wrote:
> What a joke! I hope your students are reading this to see what a
> buffoon you are.
> >
> > 2. Of course the difference between ANY function and [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h will have
> > a remainder Q(x,h), but such a difference is MEANINGLESS unless that given function
> > describes a SLOPE.
>
> John,
> just stating it leads to NOTHING if do not actually use the
> relevant property or a consequence of it.
> You are doing in reverse
> exactly the same blunder as in your alleged "proof" of your idiotic
> "new calculus".
The auxiliary equation is apparently too advanced for you to understand.
>
> But, as I explained, this is a HUGE cognitive dissonance on your part,
> it is very very unlikely you'll ever get the point anyway.
Eram semper recta
Dec 21, 2019, 10:36:46 AM12/21/19
to
[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mainstream-academics-mentally-ill-john-gabriel
This is how your BOGUS calculus is formulated and its flaws exposed through sound geometry. OTH, the New Calculus is formulated in a sound geometric way.
Perhaps if you extract your rotten teeth, you may yet have a chance of escaping Elsa Heimer? Chuckle.
<PLONK>
Python
Dec 21, 2019, 10:39:34 AM12/21/19
to
John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> You and Malum feature in Appendix 6 of my LinkedIn article:
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mainstream-academics-mentally-ill-john-gabriel
>
> Say, do you even have the balls to try and debate me on LI? Unfortunately
> I would have to be civil with you because I don't wish to be kicked off LI.
Eventually you will.
> You and Malum feature in Appendix 6 of my LinkedIn article:
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mainstream-academics-mentally-ill-john-gabriel
>
> Say, do you even have the balls to try and debate me on LI? Unfortunately
> I would have to be civil with you because I don't wish to be kicked off LI.
Eram semper recta
Dec 21, 2019, 10:46:50 AM12/21/19
to
Yours states you are an "independent CLOUD consultant" which cannot be verified and is probably a spurious claim given that you have said you teach mathematics. Being the pathological liar that you are, it's hard to say for certain.
I know you and the cunt Prof. Gilbert Strang (MIT) are very good friends. Is it also true that you and Mark Chu Carroll were once bed-buddies too? He worked on some cloud APIs at Google.
I see you haven't attempted to comment on my article yet! Chuckle.
Please do reptile! I want to make a fool of you on a respectable forum.
Sergio
Dec 21, 2019, 11:00:26 AM12/21/19
to
he posts Fake Math as fact on LI,
and all background checks will bring this up.
" I am great because no one before me even imagined such things. You
could learn much from me if you weren't such thick-headed, jealous
reptiles."
"So because the mainstream idiots do not like me or my ideas and don't
know shit about mathematics, I am called a crank."
underscores he has great difficulty in working with people.
"Thou shall not steppith upon thy own dick" - Mr. Chuckle
Sergio
Dec 21, 2019, 12:52:29 PM12/21/19
to
Braai and Malva Pudding !
Geseënde Kersfees !!
Krismasi Njema / Heri ya Krismasi
UKhisimusi omuhle and Braaibroodjie
Eram semper recta
Dec 21, 2019, 3:01:35 PM12/21/19
to
In fact, I am no longer a South African citizen. I renounced my citizenship a few years ago.
So your greetings Mr. Rotten Teeth, are not appreciated. Perhaps you should try to address a real South African.
The irony is I had no choice in the acquisition of South African citizenship because my Jew father applied whilst I was still a minor. Amusingly, I refused to bow or salute the flag. I hated the nationalists even from my first days in South Africa.
So, I am about as much South African as the Pope is Jewish.
Any other questions, Mr. Alzheimers? Chuckle.
Eram semper recta
Dec 21, 2019, 3:03:50 PM12/21/19
to
On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 11:00:26 AM UTC-5, Sergio wrote:
> On 12/21/2019 9:39 AM, Python wrote:
> > John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> >
> >> You and Malum feature in Appendix 6 of my LinkedIn article:
> >>
> >> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mainstream-academics-mentally-ill-john-gabriel
> >>
> >>
> >> Say, do you even have the balls to try and debate me on LI?
> >> Unfortunately
> >> I would have to be civil with you because I don't wish to be kicked
> >> off LI.
> >
> > Eventually you will.
> >
> >
>
> no wonder no one will hire JG,
> he posts Fake Math as fact on LI,
> and all background checks will bring this up.
I am officially disabled. This means I don't give a fuck what employers think. They can go to hell for all I care.
> On 12/21/2019 9:39 AM, Python wrote:
> > John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> >
> >> You and Malum feature in Appendix 6 of my LinkedIn article:
> >>
> >> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mainstream-academics-mentally-ill-john-gabriel
> >>
> >>
> >> Say, do you even have the balls to try and debate me on LI?
> >> Unfortunately
> >> I would have to be civil with you because I don't wish to be kicked
> >> off LI.
> >
> > Eventually you will.
> >
> >
>
> no wonder no one will hire JG,
> he posts Fake Math as fact on LI,
> and all background checks will bring this up.
Get it moron?
David Petry
Dec 21, 2019, 6:10:48 PM12/21/19
to
Python wrote:
> both Gabriel and
> Mueckenheim suffer a HUGE cognitive dissonance.
Mostowski Collapse
Dec 21, 2019, 7:12:31 PM12/21/19
to
And you are disabled because you were molested in
south africa? Or is your bird brainism inborn?
south africa? Or is your bird brainism inborn?
Eram semper recta
Dec 21, 2019, 8:30:08 PM12/21/19
to
You see, this knowledge that I revealed to Jean (actually the lot of you!) was known to me for decades. Now that you know about it, well it doesn't seem like a big deal anymore? You realise that your formulation of calculus is bogus.
So let's cut to the chase. There is much more I have known for decades which you shall never get to know. When swines the likes one finds on this newsgroup and elsewhere on the internet, disparage my character and superlative work, there is no incentive to share anything else. My free eBook is all you get. If you weren't such evil bastards, I may have been able to publish it together with my masterpiece: "What you had to know in mathematics but your (moron?) educators could not tell you." Now, you'll never know.
I might die with the crank label ... thing is, ... you fucking morons wouldn't realise what I have in the last 40 years, even if you lived another 1000 years, probably much longer than this.
Fuck you all.
Eram semper recta
Dec 21, 2019, 8:31:26 PM12/21/19
to
On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 7:12:31 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> And you are disabled because you were molested in
> south africa? Or is your bird brainism inborn?
Are you retarded because your mother dropped you on your head when you were a toddler or were you just born this way?
> And you are disabled because you were molested in
> south africa? Or is your bird brainism inborn?
Python
Dec 21, 2019, 8:56:47 PM12/21/19
to
John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> [snip pathological psychotic rant]
> I might die with the crank label ... thing is, ...
You will, John. And your name will stay for centuries to comes stuck to
this characterization as this is a very accurate and proper way to
describe your "work".
> Fuck you all.
You're welcome, idiot.
Eram semper recta
Dec 21, 2019, 9:03:40 PM12/21/19
to
On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:56:47 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> > [snip pathological psychotic rant]
> > I might die with the crank label ... thing is, ...
>
> You will, John.
Not if you die before me. Chuckle.
> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> > [snip pathological psychotic rant]
> > I might die with the crank label ... thing is, ...
>
> You will, John.
> And your name will stay for centuries to comes stuck to
> this characterization as this is a very accurate and proper way to
> describe your "work".
>
> > Fuck you all.
>
> You're welcome, idiot.
Eram semper recta
Dec 21, 2019, 9:05:38 PM12/21/19
to
You vile bastard. I will ensure that everyone knows who you are jean pierre messager, you piece of worthless shit from France.
Python
Dec 21, 2019, 9:24:44 PM12/21/19
to
John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:56:47 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
>> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
>>> [snip pathological psychotic rant]
>>> I might die with the crank label ... thing is, ...
>>
>> You will, John.
>
> Not if you die before me. Chuckle.
So what idiot? Even in the unlikely case I'll die before you,
> On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:56:47 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
>> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
>>> [snip pathological psychotic rant]
>>> I might die with the crank label ... thing is, ...
>>
>> You will, John.
>
> Not if you die before me. Chuckle.
you'll stay labeled as a crank for the centuries to come, for
a reason: you are a crank.
Alan Mackenzie
Dec 22, 2019, 4:06:31 AM12/22/19
to
Python <pyt...@python.invalid> wrote:
> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:56:47 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
>>> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
>>>> [snip pathological psychotic rant]
>>>> I might die with the crank label ... thing is, ...
>>> You will, John.
>> Not if you die before me. Chuckle.
> So what idiot? Even in the unlikely case I'll die before you,
> you'll stay labeled as a crank for the centuries to come, for
> a reason: you are a crank.
I don't think this will happen. He'll stay labelled as a crank whilst he
> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:56:47 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
>>> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
>>>> [snip pathological psychotic rant]
>>>> I might die with the crank label ... thing is, ...
>>> You will, John.
>> Not if you die before me. Chuckle.
> So what idiot? Even in the unlikely case I'll die before you,
> you'll stay labeled as a crank for the centuries to come, for
> a reason: you are a crank.
is still fouling up this newsgroup. But after he dies, he'll soon be
forgotten. People are remembered for their achievements. JG hasn't
achieved anything; except graduating as a BSc in some unspecified subject.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Ganzhinterseher
Dec 22, 2019, 6:59:02 AM12/22/19
to
Am Sonntag, 22. Dezember 2019 10:06:31 UTC+1 schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
> People are remembered for their achievements.
Python has achieved what?
> People are remembered for their achievements.
WM: And you still think that the intersection of the empty set is empty in ZFC?
Python: one nonsensical expression "intersection of a single set", usually
an intersection concerns at least *two* sets
Python: Confusing intersection *with* the empty set with intersection *over* the empty set,
WM: https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Intersection_of_Empty_Set
>
Python: Exactly as I said
What is the characeristic property of a crank: Never admit a mistake.
Regards, WM
Alan Mackenzie
Dec 22, 2019, 7:46:44 AM12/22/19
to
Ganzhinterseher <claus.v...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 22. Dezember 2019 10:06:31 UTC+1 schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
>> People are remembered for their achievements.
> Python has achieved what?
I don't know. Probably, like most people (including me), not a great
> Am Sonntag, 22. Dezember 2019 10:06:31 UTC+1 schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
>> People are remembered for their achievements.
> Python has achieved what?
deal. Like most people, he'll be remembered by his friends and family
for a generation or two, then fade from the collective memory. Nothing
wrong with that.
The point is that Python does not suffer the delusion of John Gabriel,
who believes JG is somehow worthy of being remembered beyond the above
(that's assuming he has any friends to remember him).
[ .... ]
> Regards, WM
Eram semper recta
Dec 22, 2019, 8:17:30 AM12/22/19
to
On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 9:24:44 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:56:47 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> >> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> >>> [snip pathological psychotic rant]
> >>> I might die with the crank label ... thing is, ...
> >>
> >> You will, John.
> >
> > Not if you die before me. Chuckle.
>
> So what idiot? Even in the unlikely case I'll die before you,
> you'll stay labeled as a crank for the centuries to come, for
> a reason: you are a crank.
I am not a crank and those who have studied the New Calculus (based only on sound geometry) know that you and your fellow cunts on this newsgroup are libelous and jealous.
> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:56:47 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> >> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> >>> [snip pathological psychotic rant]
> >>> I might die with the crank label ... thing is, ...
> >>
> >> You will, John.
> >
> > Not if you die before me. Chuckle.
>
> So what idiot? Even in the unlikely case I'll die before you,
> you'll stay labeled as a crank for the centuries to come, for
> a reason: you are a crank.
I see you are still struggling to understand what is the definition of SLOPE.
Of course the difference between ANY (*) function and [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h will have a remainder Q(x,h), but such a difference is MEANINGLESS unless that given function (*) describes a SLOPE.
[ f(x+42h)-f(x) ] / h and [f(x+h^2)-f(x)]/h
DO NOT describe SLOPES.
What part of this do you not understand you pitiful vile reptile?
Eram semper recta
Dec 22, 2019, 8:23:40 AM12/22/19
to
Worthless fools like you serve one purpose only - to create a lot of noise and try to diverge from the facts. I am being recognised contrary to claims by cranks like you and Jean pierre messager. I am not well liked, but that's not my problem.
You know that you can't refute anything I say, so you resort to non-issues such as degrees, organisations, bla, bla, bla.
Tell me idiot, out of the thousands of worthless PhD math dissertations, how many are actually remarkable? Less than 0.005%. Wearing a robe and being part of the Church of Academia does not save you from being a crank. You are a crank because you cannot see reason.
Eram semper recta
Dec 22, 2019, 8:30:22 AM12/22/19
to
JPM (jean pierre messager aka Python aka YBM): The difference between ANY function of x (not only the slope of the curve at x) and [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h is a function of x and h...
JG: Of course the difference between ANY (*) function and [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h will have a remainder Q(x,h), but such a difference is MEANINGLESS unless that given function (*) describes a SLOPE.
[ f(x+42h)-f(x) ] / h and [f(x+h^2)-f(x)]/h
DO NOT describe SLOPES.
The vile reptile stepped into feces so badly this time that he is speechless. It's quite hilarious because teaching him high school geometry must surely be the most embarrassing thing to happen to him so many years after he left school.
JPM is a psychotic and pathological liar consumed by jealousy and an intense hatred for me. I am just savouring these last few comments that have seen him left speechless. Having run out of platitudes also is a first for Mr. Sophistry! LMAO.
JPM claims to have lectured mathematics but I am not certain this is true. Does anyone know where he taught?
Message has been deleted
Ganzhinterseher
Dec 22, 2019, 1:07:34 PM12/22/19
to
Am Sonntag, 22. Dezember 2019 00:10:48 UTC+1 schrieb David Petry:
> Funny, I always thought that "cognitive dissonance" refers to a queasy feeling someone might get when he becomes cognizant of the inconsistencies in his beliefs. But that's not what the dictionary says. Python is using the word correctly, regardless of whether his is correct in his assertion.
Try whether you can judge: An endsegment is E(k) = {k, k+1, k+2, ...}.
> Funny, I always thought that "cognitive dissonance" refers to a queasy feeling someone might get when he becomes cognizant of the inconsistencies in his beliefs. But that's not what the dictionary says. Python is using the word correctly, regardless of whether his is correct in his assertion.
The intersection over all endsegments is empty:
∩ E(k) = {}
k ∈ ℕ
But mathematics says that every endsegment removes only one natnumber
∀k ∈ ℕ: E(k+1) = E(k) \ {k}
in the sequence
E(1) = E(1)
E(1) ∩ E(2) = E(2)
E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) = E(3)
...
If this rule remains true, then the final empty set
E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... = { }
cannot be reached without passing through all finite sets on the right-hand side.
This does not happen? Then mathematics is violated.
Correct is: It cannot be observed! That means that the endsegments producing the empty set are undefinable, so called dark numbers.
All definable endsegments fail because
∀k ∈ ℕ_def: ∩{E(1), E(2), ..., E(k)} = E(k) /\ |E(k)| = ℵo .
I never met a student who does not understand (since I discovered it one or two years ago).
REgards, WM
Eram semper recta
Dec 22, 2019, 2:23:19 PM12/22/19
to
>
> REgards, WM
Python
Dec 22, 2019, 3:17:51 PM12/22/19
to
Crank Wolfgang Mueckenheim sockpuppet, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> [snip crap]
them in order to force them to pretend to agree to your fallacies, even
having then to repeat them in your infamous, shameful exams, in order to
get good grades. It is certain that they recognize you as the crank, the
impostor and the absolute disgrace you are, Crank Adjunct Lecturer
Wolfgang Mueckenheim, from Hochschule Augsburg.
> [snip crap]
> I never met a student who does not understand (since I discovered it one or two years ago).
You never met a student which is not a victim of your position to abuse
them in order to force them to pretend to agree to your fallacies, even
having then to repeat them in your infamous, shameful exams, in order to
get good grades. It is certain that they recognize you as the crank, the
impostor and the absolute disgrace you are, Crank Adjunct Lecturer
Wolfgang Mueckenheim, from Hochschule Augsburg.
Python
Dec 22, 2019, 3:21:42 PM12/22/19
to
Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> Crank Wolfgang Mueckenheim sockpuppet, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
...
> Crank Wolfgang Mueckenheim sockpuppet, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
>> All definable endsegments fail because
>>
>> ∀k ∈ ℕ_def: ∩{E(1), E(2), ..., E(k)} = E(k) /\ |E(k)| = ℵo .
>>
>> I never met a student who does not understand (since I discovered it one or two years ago).
>
> Many of my YT subscribers have commented on how clever is your argument.
> I responded that I think so too. :-))
This does not come as a big surprise :-D
>>
>> ∀k ∈ ℕ_def: ∩{E(1), E(2), ..., E(k)} = E(k) /\ |E(k)| = ℵo .
>>
>> I never met a student who does not understand (since I discovered it one or two years ago).
>
> Many of my YT subscribers have commented on how clever is your argument.
> I responded that I think so too. :-))
Alan Mackenzie
Dec 22, 2019, 3:33:09 PM12/22/19
to
Eram semper recta <thenewc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 4:06:31 AM UTC-5, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Python <pyt...@python.invalid> wrote:
>> > John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:56:47 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
>> >>> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
>> >>>> [snip pathological psychotic rant]
>> >>>> I might die with the crank label ... thing is, ...
>> >>> You will, John.
>> >> Not if you die before me. Chuckle.
>> > So what idiot? Even in the unlikely case I'll die before you,
>> > you'll stay labeled as a crank for the centuries to come, for
>> > a reason: you are a crank.
>> I don't think this will happen. He'll stay labelled as a crank whilst
>> he is still fouling up this newsgroup. But after he dies, he'll soon
>> be forgotten. People are remembered for their achievements. JG
>> hasn't achieved anything; except graduating as a BSc in some
>> unspecified subject.
> You mean to say that if someone doesn't have a degree at all, then he
> is not worth listening to at all? And if he has a degree, then it must
> be in mainstream mythmatics? Chuckle.
Where do you get that from? I listen every day to people without
> On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 4:06:31 AM UTC-5, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Python <pyt...@python.invalid> wrote:
>> > John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:56:47 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
>> >>> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
>> >>>> [snip pathological psychotic rant]
>> >>>> I might die with the crank label ... thing is, ...
>> >>> You will, John.
>> >> Not if you die before me. Chuckle.
>> > So what idiot? Even in the unlikely case I'll die before you,
>> > you'll stay labeled as a crank for the centuries to come, for
>> > a reason: you are a crank.
>> I don't think this will happen. He'll stay labelled as a crank whilst
>> he is still fouling up this newsgroup. But after he dies, he'll soon
>> be forgotten. People are remembered for their achievements. JG
>> hasn't achieved anything; except graduating as a BSc in some
>> unspecified subject.
> You mean to say that if someone doesn't have a degree at all, then he
> is not worth listening to at all? And if he has a degree, then it must
> be in mainstream mythmatics? Chuckle.
degrees, frequently acting on their suggestions and advice. I respect
learning, and listen to people with degrees in subjects other than maths.
But these people don't falsely pretend to be maths experts, and if they
did, they would soon get shot down by me, as you do.
> Worthless fools like you serve one purpose only - to create a lot of
> noise and try to diverge from the facts. I am being recognised contrary
> to claims by cranks like you and Jean pierre messager. I am not well
> liked, but that's not my problem.
of basic maths has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese. You have no
respect for established maths (even that which you understand) or
mathematicians. You despise mainstream maths. All the above are firm
indications of crankiness.
That you call and refer to the mathematically knowledgeable as cranks is
a further indication. As is your habit of avoiding discussion of your
"ideas" in a factual manner by hurling abuse at other people and
distorting what they say.
> You know that you can't refute anything I say, so you resort to
> non-issues such as degrees, organisations, bla, bla, bla.
cranky to accept correction. It was you who recently brought up the
topic of your degree, and it is natural for people like me to ask
questions about it in reply.
> Tell me idiot, out of the thousands of worthless PhD math
> dissertations, how many are actually remarkable? Less than 0.005%.
> Wearing a robe and being part of the Church of Academia does not save
> you from being a crank. You are a crank because you cannot see reason.
degrees in maths. Even more so of those who contribute to mathematical
knowledge. Just what subject did you get your BSc in?
Eram semper recta
Dec 22, 2019, 4:20:24 PM12/22/19
to
On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 3:33:09 PM UTC-5, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Eram semper recta <thenewc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 4:06:31 AM UTC-5, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> >> Python <pyt...@python.invalid> wrote:
> >> > John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> >> >> On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:56:47 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> >> >>> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> >> >>>> [snip pathological psychotic rant]
> >> >>>> I might die with the crank label ... thing is, ...
>
> >> >>> You will, John.
>
> >> >> Not if you die before me. Chuckle.
>
> >> > So what idiot? Even in the unlikely case I'll die before you,
> >> > you'll stay labeled as a crank for the centuries to come, for
> >> > a reason: you are a crank.
>
> >> I don't think this will happen. He'll stay labelled as a crank whilst
> >> he is still fouling up this newsgroup. But after he dies, he'll soon
> >> be forgotten. People are remembered for their achievements. JG
> >> hasn't achieved anything; except graduating as a BSc in some
> >> unspecified subject.
>
> > You mean to say that if someone doesn't have a degree at all, then he
> > is not worth listening to at all? And if he has a degree, then it must
> > be in mainstream mythmatics? Chuckle.
>
> Where do you get that from?
From you moron! You are full of crap and no substance. Your rant is long and full of misinformation. I don't waste time on complete idiots like you. I'd rather beat the crap out of Jean Pierre Messager. Chuckle.
> Eram semper recta <thenewc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 4:06:31 AM UTC-5, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> >> Python <pyt...@python.invalid> wrote:
> >> > John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> >> >> On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:56:47 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> >> >>> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> >> >>>> [snip pathological psychotic rant]
> >> >>>> I might die with the crank label ... thing is, ...
>
> >> >>> You will, John.
>
> >> >> Not if you die before me. Chuckle.
>
> >> > So what idiot? Even in the unlikely case I'll die before you,
> >> > you'll stay labeled as a crank for the centuries to come, for
> >> > a reason: you are a crank.
>
> >> I don't think this will happen. He'll stay labelled as a crank whilst
> >> he is still fouling up this newsgroup. But after he dies, he'll soon
> >> be forgotten. People are remembered for their achievements. JG
> >> hasn't achieved anything; except graduating as a BSc in some
> >> unspecified subject.
>
> > You mean to say that if someone doesn't have a degree at all, then he
> > is not worth listening to at all? And if he has a degree, then it must
> > be in mainstream mythmatics? Chuckle.
>
> Where do you get that from?
<drivel follows as usual>
Eram semper recta
Dec 22, 2019, 4:21:59 PM12/22/19
to
On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 3:17:51 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> Crank Wolfgang Mueckenheim sockpuppet, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> > [snip crap]
Hmm. And now you are copying me again. [snip crap] is yet another thing I taught you. Chuckle.
> Crank Wolfgang Mueckenheim sockpuppet, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> > [snip crap]
> > I never met a student who does not understand (since I discovered it one or two years ago).
>
> You never met a student which is not a victim of your position to abuse
> them in order to force them to pretend to agree to your fallacies, even
> having then to repeat them in your infamous, shameful exams, in order to
> get good grades. It is certain that they recognize you as the crank, the
> impostor and the absolute disgrace you are, Crank Adjunct Lecturer
> Wolfgang Mueckenheim, from Hochschule Augsburg.
Ganzhinterseher
Dec 22, 2019, 4:53:44 PM12/22/19
to
Regards, WM
Ganzhinterseher
Dec 22, 2019, 5:08:40 PM12/22/19
to
Am Sonntag, 22. Dezember 2019 21:17:51 UTC+1 schrieb Python:
>
> > I never met a student who does not understand (since I discovered it one or two years ago).
>
> You never met a student which is not a victim of your position
No student is or was obliged to take my lesson on the history of the infinite, not even during the time when I was dean of the faculty.
>
> > I never met a student who does not understand (since I discovered it one or two years ago).
>
> You never met a student which is not a victim of your position
But almost all understand that a sequence of sets of card aleph_0 cannot have a limit of card 0. The simple reason is that every set with card aleph_0 has in fact infinitely many elements, real solid elements. The contrary opinion by matheologians shows that they do not accept but despise mathematics. This comes about most clearly in the present case of endsegments where the sets of the sequence
E(1) = E(1)
E(1) ∩ E(2) = E(2)
E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) = E(3)
...
∀k ∈ ℕ: E(k+1) = E(k) \ {k} .
> in order to force them to pretend to agree to your fallacies
Regards, WM
Mostowski Collapse
Dec 22, 2019, 5:11:27 PM12/22/19
to
Well omega is in question, since this here:
E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... = { }
Is the same as:
∩ E(k+1) = {}
k ∈ ω
And you think its in contradiction with:
E(1) =/= {}
E(1) ∩ E(2) =/= {}
E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) =/= {}
...
Which is the same as:
forall n ∩ E(k+1) =/= {}
k ∈ n
But all you do is apply your Mückenschuss:
/* WMs Fallacy */
forall n P(n) => P(ω)
Which makes you quite an obstinate crank.
LMAO!
E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... = { }
∩ E(k+1) = {}
k ∈ ω
And you think its in contradiction with:
E(1) =/= {}
E(1) ∩ E(2) =/= {}
E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) =/= {}
...
Which is the same as:
forall n ∩ E(k+1) =/= {}
k ∈ n
But all you do is apply your Mückenschuss:
/* WMs Fallacy */
forall n P(n) => P(ω)
Which makes you quite an obstinate crank.
LMAO!
Python
Dec 22, 2019, 5:22:43 PM12/22/19
to
Crank Wolfgang Mueckenheim sockpuppet, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 22. Dezember 2019 21:17:51 UTC+1 schrieb Python:
>>
>>> I never met a student who does not understand (since I discovered it one or two years ago).
>>
>> You never met a student which is not a victim of your position
>
> No student is or was obliged to take my lesson on the history of the infinite, not even during the time when I was dean of the faculty.
You deliberately miss a huge point here, Crank Wolfgang Mueckenheim,
>>
>>> I never met a student who does not understand (since I discovered it one or two years ago).
>>
>> You never met a student which is not a victim of your position
>
> No student is or was obliged to take my lesson on the history of the infinite, not even during the time when I was dean of the faculty.
from Hochschule Augsburg. Students usually trust the institution they
are studying in, not as providing necessarily good teachers (even if
it is not quite a bad idea) but at least they trust the institution
in not scheduling courses taught by complete charlatan, mad idiotic
incompetent dorks, well, people like you.
This is quite amazing and shameful that Hochschule Augsburg has been
violating this basic trust for years. Profoundly disgusting. Seriously
is there something that wrong with Germany?
As long as the students are hooked, I mean registered in the bunch
of fallacies you call a "course", it is very difficult to move back,
especially because Hochschule Augsburg is not a real University. In
any real University in Germany you would have been kicked in the ass
not only by colleagues but by students too, very very quickly. You
course wouldn't have last a single year there.
> This is not a fallacy but hard and simple mathematics. I just looked at John's channel and saw as many upvotes as downvotes. Of course most upvotes will be due to his splendid presentation, but that the balance exists is really surprising. Usually the elite of is much smaller. than 50 %. See for instance my explanation of the Binary Tree in https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-such-thing-as-a-mathematical-paradox.
for videos of cats and dogs.
Ford Galaxy
Dec 22, 2019, 5:46:51 PM12/22/19
to
Shut up rectum-boy.
Ford Galaxy
Dec 22, 2019, 5:50:29 PM12/22/19
to
Adios, rectum-boy.
Eram semper recta
Dec 22, 2019, 6:45:33 PM12/22/19
to
>
> Regards, WM
Ganzhinterseher
Dec 23, 2019, 3:50:52 AM12/23/19
to
Am Sonntag, 22. Dezember 2019 23:22:43 UTC+1 schrieb Python:
> Crank Wolfgang Mueckenheim sockpuppet, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 22. Dezember 2019 21:17:51 UTC+1 schrieb Python:
> >>
> >>> I never met a student who does not understand (since I discovered it one or two years ago).
> >>
> >> You never met a student which is not a victim of your position
> >
> > No student is or was obliged to take my lesson on the history of the infinite, not even during the time when I was dean of the faculty.
>
> You deliberately miss a huge point here. Students usually trust the institution they
> Crank Wolfgang Mueckenheim sockpuppet, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 22. Dezember 2019 21:17:51 UTC+1 schrieb Python:
> >>
> >>> I never met a student who does not understand (since I discovered it one or two years ago).
> >>
> >> You never met a student which is not a victim of your position
> >
> > No student is or was obliged to take my lesson on the history of the infinite, not even during the time when I was dean of the faculty.
>
> are studying in, not as providing necessarily good teachers (even if
> it is not quite a bad idea) but at least they trust the institution
> in not scheduling courses taught by complete charlatan,
Sorry, there are many courses on mathemtical logic and set theory.
> it is not quite a bad idea) but at least they trust the institution
> in not scheduling courses taught by complete charlatan,
>
> In
> any real University in Germany you would have been kicked in the ass
> not only by colleagues but by students too, very very quickly. You
> course wouldn't have last a single year there.
Maybe. Set theory has perverted most brains of people who studied it. They cannot even think about the fact that every definable endsegment can be removed from E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... = { } with no effect concerning the result. It is obvious to every sober mind, but "mathematical logic" seems to be immunizing its adherents against simple mathematical arguing like
> In
> any real University in Germany you would have been kicked in the ass
> not only by colleagues but by students too, very very quickly. You
> course wouldn't have last a single year there.
∀k ∈ ℕ: E(k+1) = E(k) \ {k} .
>
> > This is not a fallacy but hard and simple mathematics. I just looked at John's channel and saw as many upvotes as downvotes. Of course most upvotes will be due to his splendid presentation, but that the balance exists is really surprising. Usually the elite of is much smaller. than 50 %.
>
>
> this is not quora or stackoverflow, this is YouTube, a place
for videos of cats and dogs
like Richard Feynman or Albert Einstein? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRE0GxT6Zbw, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OamFZCFfQkg
for videos of cats and dogs
Stackoverflow is a place of propaganda for transfinite set theory and suppression of real mathematics by "resarch mathematicians". Many examples showing that they are unable to nderstand simplest arguments can be found in https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/Transfinity/Transfinity/pdf, search for keyword Discussion.
Quora allows the elite to express their opinion. See for instance my explanation of the Binary Tree with many upvotes in https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-such-thing-as-a-mathematical-paradox.
Regards, WM
Ganzhinterseher
Dec 23, 2019, 3:51:30 AM12/23/19
to
Am Sonntag, 22. Dezember 2019 23:11:27 UTC+1 schrieb Mostowski Collapse:
> Well omega is in question, since this here:
>
> E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... = { }
>
> Is the same as:
>
> ∩ E(k+1) = {}
> k ∈ ω
>
> And you think its in contradiction with:
>
> E(1) =/= {}
> E(1) ∩ E(2) =/= {}
> E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) =/= {}
> ...
>
> Which is the same as:
>
> forall n ∩ E(k+1) =/= {}
> k ∈ n
>
> But all you do is apply
>
> Well omega is in question, since this here:
>
> E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... = { }
>
> Is the same as:
>
> ∩ E(k+1) = {}
> k ∈ ω
>
> And you think its in contradiction with:
>
> E(1) =/= {}
> E(1) ∩ E(2) =/= {}
> E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) =/= {}
> ...
>
> Which is the same as:
>
> forall n ∩ E(k+1) =/= {}
> k ∈ n
>
> But all you do is apply
>
> forall n P(n) => P(ω)
First, this is applied by all matheologians who claim that the sets |N and Q are in bijection.
Second I do not apply that because I do not talk about whole steets but only about the fact that a descending sequence with end zero has to pass all finite cardinalities when
∀k ∈ ℕ: E(k+1) = E(k) \ {k}
Regards, WM
Mostowski Collapse
Dec 23, 2019, 4:13:18 AM12/23/19
to
Nope, you dont need Mückenschuss to show
N and Q are in bijection, i.e. that there
exists a function f : N -> Q, which is
injective and surjective.
Thats one of your halucinations and
confusions which makes you an
obstinate crank.
Am Montag, 23. Dezember 2019 09:51:30 UTC+1 schrieb Ganzhinterseher:
> Am Sonntag, 22. Dezember 2019 23:11:27 UTC+1 schrieb Mostowski Collapse:
> > Well omega is in question, since this here:
> >
> > E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... = { }
> >
> > Is the same as:
> >
> > ∩ E(k+1) = {}
> > k ∈ ω
> >
> > And you think its in contradiction with:
> >
> > E(1) =/= {}
> > E(1) ∩ E(2) =/= {}
> > E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) =/= {}
> > ...
> >
> > Which is the same as:
> >
> > forall n ∩ E(k+1) =/= {}
> > k ∈ n
> >
> > But all you do is apply
> >
> > forall n P(n) => P(ω)
>
> First, this is applied by all matheologians who claim that the sets op are in bijection.
N and Q are in bijection, i.e. that there
exists a function f : N -> Q, which is
injective and surjective.
Thats one of your halucinations and
confusions which makes you an
obstinate crank.
Am Montag, 23. Dezember 2019 09:51:30 UTC+1 schrieb Ganzhinterseher:
> Am Sonntag, 22. Dezember 2019 23:11:27 UTC+1 schrieb Mostowski Collapse:
> > Well omega is in question, since this here:
> >
> > E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... = { }
> >
> > Is the same as:
> >
> > ∩ E(k+1) = {}
> > k ∈ ω
> >
> > And you think its in contradiction with:
> >
> > E(1) =/= {}
> > E(1) ∩ E(2) =/= {}
> > E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) =/= {}
> > ...
> >
> > Which is the same as:
> >
> > forall n ∩ E(k+1) =/= {}
> > k ∈ n
> >
> > But all you do is apply
> >
> > forall n P(n) => P(ω)
>
Ganzhinterseher
Dec 23, 2019, 6:29:46 AM12/23/19
to
Am Montag, 23. Dezember 2019 10:13:18 UTC+1 schrieb Mostowski Collapse:
> show
> N and Q are in bijection, i.e. that there
>
> exists a function f : N -> Q, which is
> injective and surjective.
Cantor used this: If every element of set M can be related to one and only one corresponding element of set N and vice versa, and if there is never an obstacle or halt in this process of assignment, then both infinite sets are in bijection.
> show
> N and Q are in bijection, i.e. that there
>
> exists a function f : N -> Q, which is
> injective and surjective.
But we can refute this simple extension from finite to infinite sets by mathematics:
(1) Every sequence a_1, a_2, a_3, ..., a_k, a_(k+1) ... can be analyzed at every definable term a_k. After reconnecting the two parts the sequence is the same as before.
(2) All endsegments obey the definition E(k+1) = E(k) \ {k} according to which each one is removing only one natnumber.
There is no chance to get E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... = { } by only definable endsegments.
Regards, WM
Mostowski Collapse
Dec 23, 2019, 6:34:48 AM12/23/19
to
Yes, he is unfolding the definition of the
phrase "in bijection":
in_bijection(A,B) :<=> exists f : A -> B, f bijective
Unfolding a definition is not a general inference
rule like Mückenschuss.
phrase "in bijection":
in_bijection(A,B) :<=> exists f : A -> B, f bijective
Unfolding a definition is not a general inference
rule like Mückenschuss.
Mostowski Collapse
Dec 23, 2019, 6:39:38 AM12/23/19
to
In your Mückenschuss you take a property
about the infinite intersection, and jump
to conclusions.
But Cantor only unfolds "in bijection",
you cannot generalize this unfolding
to other things.
Its like coffee is made of beans. This
doesn't mean tea is also made of beans.
coffee(X) :<=> X made of beans
Does not imply:
tea(X) :<=> X made of beans
tea is made of leaves.
How on earth does somebody think he can just
switch Definiendum and use same Definiens,
only because the definition has
set arguments in it, such a stupidity is
beyond comprehension.
Whats wrong with you?
about the infinite intersection, and jump
to conclusions.
But Cantor only unfolds "in bijection",
you cannot generalize this unfolding
to other things.
Its like coffee is made of beans. This
doesn't mean tea is also made of beans.
coffee(X) :<=> X made of beans
Does not imply:
tea(X) :<=> X made of beans
tea is made of leaves.
How on earth does somebody think he can just
switch Definiendum and use same Definiens,
only because the definition has
set arguments in it, such a stupidity is
beyond comprehension.
Whats wrong with you?
j4n bur53
Dec 23, 2019, 6:43:15 AM12/23/19
to
Cantor is just exercising a **particular**
definition that he made himself, to see if the
reader understands the definition.
Nothing to do with more **general** inference
rules of logic.
Whats wrong with you?
Mostowski Collapse schrieb:
definition that he made himself, to see if the
reader understands the definition.
Nothing to do with more **general** inference
rules of logic.
Whats wrong with you?
Mostowski Collapse schrieb:
Eram semper recta
Dec 23, 2019, 9:00:22 AM12/23/19
to
On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 6:39:38 AM UTC-5, Moron Jan Burse aka Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> In your Mückenschuss you take a property
> about the infinite intersection, and jump
> to conclusions.
>
> But Cantor only unfolds "in bijection",
> you cannot generalize this unfolding
> to other things.
>
> Its like coffee is made of beans. This
> doesn't mean tea is also made of beans.
>
> coffee(X) :<=> X made of beans
>
> Does not imply:
>
> tea(X) :<=> X made of beans
>
> tea is made of leaves.
>
> How on earth does somebody think he can just
> switch Definiendum and use same Definiens,
> only because the definition has
>
> set arguments in it, such a stupidity is
> beyond comprehension.
You are the moron who is in way over his head.
> In your Mückenschuss you take a property
> about the infinite intersection, and jump
> to conclusions.
>
> But Cantor only unfolds "in bijection",
> you cannot generalize this unfolding
> to other things.
>
> Its like coffee is made of beans. This
> doesn't mean tea is also made of beans.
>
> coffee(X) :<=> X made of beans
>
> Does not imply:
>
> tea(X) :<=> X made of beans
>
> tea is made of leaves.
>
> How on earth does somebody think he can just
> switch Definiendum and use same Definiens,
> only because the definition has
>
> set arguments in it, such a stupidity is
> beyond comprehension.
>
> Whats wrong with you?
You should stop asking others this question and direct it to yourself. You are the most obstinate fool.
<PLONK>
Mostowski Collapse
Dec 23, 2019, 12:15:05 PM12/23/19
to
Dream on troll boy. What is 3=<4, invalid?
LMAO!
LMAO!
Eram semper recta
Dec 23, 2019, 1:10:47 PM12/23/19
to
On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:15:05 PM UTC-5, jan burse aka Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> Dream on troll boy. What is 3=<4, invalid?
In mathematics we have what is called deductive reasoning. You should read up on it some time, you birdbrain!
> Dream on troll boy. What is 3=<4, invalid?
3 =< x in mathematics (not your piss-shit FOL) means
(3 is less than x) OR (3 is equal to x)
That is valid as long as we don't know x. However once we know x, there is no longer a disjunction, that means there is no more "OR". This is as simple as I can explain it to you birdbrain!
(3 is less than 4) OR (3 is equal to 4)
is utter bullshit because 3 can never be equal to 4. It does not have to be equal to 4, but this part of the disjunction is impossible, hence no more OR.
<drivel>
Ganzhinterseher
Dec 23, 2019, 1:15:01 PM12/23/19
to
Am Montag, 23. Dezember 2019 12:43:15 UTC+1 schrieb Mostowski Collapse:
> Cantor is just exercising a **particular**
> definition that he made himself
Yes, he applies the rule: If every n is in bijection with q_n, then all n are in bijection with q_n.
> Cantor is just exercising a **particular**
> definition that he made himself
There is no other way to prove the existence of the bijection |N, Q.
>, to see if the
> reader understands the definition.
>
> Nothing to do with more **general** inference
> rules of logic.
There is a simple inference rule: If every x of X is not in Y, then X is not a subset of Y.
> Nothing to do with more **general** inference
> rules of logic.
Regards, WM
Mostowski Collapse
Dec 23, 2019, 1:36:42 PM12/23/19
to
As usual your gibberisch doesn't make any sense.
An element cannot be in bijection with an element,
like n with q_n.
Only a singleton {n} can for example be in bijection
with {q_n}, which is trivially true since both sets
are of size 1. Or a pair {n,m} can be in bijection
with another pair {q_n,q_m} provided n=/=m and
q_n =/= q_m. The term "in_bijection" is defined
between two sets and not between two elements.
This is what cantor defined:
/* Cantors Definition */
in_bijection(A,B) :<=> exists f : A -> B, f bijective
But there is no definition:
in_bijection(a,b) :<=> ?
You are just halucinating and confused WM.
An element cannot be in bijection with an element,
like n with q_n.
Only a singleton {n} can for example be in bijection
with {q_n}, which is trivially true since both sets
are of size 1. Or a pair {n,m} can be in bijection
with another pair {q_n,q_m} provided n=/=m and
q_n =/= q_m. The term "in_bijection" is defined
between two sets and not between two elements.
This is what cantor defined:
/* Cantors Definition */
in_bijection(A,B) :<=> exists f : A -> B, f bijective
in_bijection(a,b) :<=> ?
You are just halucinating and confused WM.
Mostowski Collapse
Dec 23, 2019, 1:38:57 PM12/23/19
to
The bullshit is on your side. You have never
seen the truth table of OR, but you are 58
years old. LMAO!
seen the truth table of OR, but you are 58
years old. LMAO!
Mostowski Collapse
Dec 23, 2019, 1:46:53 PM12/23/19
to
Wikipedia uses X and Y instead of A and B,
but the ellipse shape X is a set and the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection#/media/File:Bijection.svg
ellipse shape Y is a set. For a set X of size
n and a set Y of size n, there are n! different
functions f : X -> Y, such that f is bijective.
For an x e X, f(x) is called the image of x.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_(mathematics)
but the ellipse shape X is a set and the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection#/media/File:Bijection.svg
ellipse shape Y is a set. For a set X of size
n and a set Y of size n, there are n! different
functions f : X -> Y, such that f is bijective.
For an x e X, f(x) is called the image of x.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_(mathematics)
Ganzhinterseher
Dec 23, 2019, 1:48:48 PM12/23/19
to
Am Montag, 23. Dezember 2019 19:36:42 UTC+1 schrieb Mostowski Collapse:
> This is what cantor defined:
>
> /* Cantors Definition */
>
> in_bijection(A,B) :<=> exists f : A -> B, f bijective
How do you prove the surjectivity?
>
> /* Cantors Definition */
>
> in_bijection(A,B) :<=> exists f : A -> B, f bijective
There is a simple inference rule: If every x of X is not in Y, then X is not a subset of Y.
Given the two axioms:
(1) Every sequence a_1, a_2, a_3, ..., a_k, a_(k+1) ... can be analyzed at every definable term a_k. After reconnecting the two parts the sequence is the same as before.
(2) All endsegments obey the definition E(k+1) = E(k) \ {k} according to which each one is removing only one natnumber.
Do you agree?
Regards, WM
Mostowski Collapse
Dec 23, 2019, 1:57:55 PM12/23/19
to
Like there is a definition for in bijection,
there is a definition for in intersection:
in_intersection(x,A) :<=> forall a (a e A => x e a)
Now we can show:
~exists k in_intersection(k,{E(n)|n e N})
Proof:
~(k e E(k+1)).
Therefore it doesn't hold forall n(n e N => k e E(n)).
Therefore it doesn't hold exists k in_intersection(k,{E(n)|n e N}).
Q.E.D.
Corrollary:
intersection({E(n)|n e N}) = {}, where
intersection(A) = { x | in_interection(x,A) }
Proof:
~exists k in_intersection(k,{E(n)|n e N}).
Therefore forall k ~in_intersection(k,{E(n)|n e N}).
Therefore intersection(k,{E(n)|n e N})={}.
Q.E.D.
there is a definition for in intersection:
in_intersection(x,A) :<=> forall a (a e A => x e a)
Now we can show:
~exists k in_intersection(k,{E(n)|n e N})
Proof:
~(k e E(k+1)).
Therefore it doesn't hold forall n(n e N => k e E(n)).
Therefore it doesn't hold exists k in_intersection(k,{E(n)|n e N}).
Q.E.D.
Corrollary:
intersection({E(n)|n e N}) = {}, where
intersection(A) = { x | in_interection(x,A) }
Proof:
~exists k in_intersection(k,{E(n)|n e N}).
Therefore forall k ~in_intersection(k,{E(n)|n e N}).
Therefore intersection(k,{E(n)|n e N})={}.
Q.E.D.
Mostowski Collapse
Dec 23, 2019, 2:00:34 PM12/23/19
to
If you split E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ...
somewhere, this doesn't change anything:
E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... =
(E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(k)) ∩ (E(k+1) ∩ E(k+2) ∩ ...) =
E(k) ∩ {} =
{}
Same result, again empty.
somewhere, this doesn't change anything:
E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... =
E(k) ∩ {} =
{}
Same result, again empty.
Ganzhinterseher
Dec 23, 2019, 2:12:53 PM12/23/19
to
Am Montag, 23. Dezember 2019 20:00:34 UTC+1 schrieb Mostowski Collapse:
> If you split E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ...
> somewhere, this doesn't change anything:
>
> E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... =
>
> (E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(k)) ∩ (E(k+1) ∩ E(k+2) ∩ ...) =
>
> E(k) ∩ {} =
>
> {}
>
> Same result, again empty.
Fine. Then we can analyze the sequence at every definable step. Now explain where E(k+1) = E(k) \ {k} does fail, i.e., how the empty set is reached by definable endsegments without the possibility to analyze it before the empty set is reached but after a finite set is reached.
> If you split E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ...
> somewhere, this doesn't change anything:
>
> E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... =
>
> (E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(k)) ∩ (E(k+1) ∩ E(k+2) ∩ ...) =
>
> E(k) ∩ {} =
>
> {}
>
> Same result, again empty.
Regards, WM
Ganzhinterseher
Dec 23, 2019, 2:14:02 PM12/23/19
to
Am Montag, 23. Dezember 2019 19:57:55 UTC+1 schrieb Mostowski Collapse:
> Corrollary:
> intersection({E(n)|n e N}) = {},
That is not in question.
> intersection({E(n)|n e N}) = {},
In question is the claim that all endsegments are definable:
All endsegments obey the definition E(k+1) = E(k) \ {k} according to which each one is removing only one natnumber.
There is no possibility to get E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... = { } by only definable endsegments.
Mitch Raemsch
Dec 23, 2019, 2:56:07 PM12/23/19
to
On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 5:58:14 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> Recently I noticed that there is a common pattern amongst crank when it
> comes to proofs and argument. It is about not being able to spot an
> obvious hint that a proof cannot be correct: when they pretend to draw
> a conclusion from a property which has nothing specific, a property that
> is true for everything inside the considered domain.
>
> John Gabriel pretend to draw conclusion about the derivative f' of
> a given function f from the property that:
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) (*)
>
> But as ANY function p shares this property with f' (you just have
> to define Q(x,h) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - p(x) to convince yourself) this
> is definitely IMPOSSIBLE to end up with anything pertinent for f' from
> equation (*).
>
> Same with Professor (very sadly) Wolfgang Mueckenheim, who pretend to
> conclude something from the fact that "xxx is a member of a finite set"
> (xxx being either a end segment of N, a cardinal, whatever, he uses this
> argument all the time). This is utterly stupid of course, as anything is
> a member of a finite set in the first place: consider the set {anything}
>
> This kind of hint who allows to spot that a proof is invalid from its
> very first place is very useful, as well as another hint: if you haven't
> used a key property of an kind of object - say a derivative - in a proof
> of something supposed to be specific to this kind of object, it is very
> very likely to be invalid. This is something I explain quite often to
> students, and they absolutely get the point immediately.
>
> Beside of their lack of ability and lack of integrity, this shows
> clearly that at the root of their crankiness, both Gabriel and
> Mueckenheim suffer a HUGE cognitive dissonance.
Roy masters is a crank that doesn't like math or science.
You are a hypocrite.
> Recently I noticed that there is a common pattern amongst crank when it
> comes to proofs and argument. It is about not being able to spot an
> obvious hint that a proof cannot be correct: when they pretend to draw
> a conclusion from a property which has nothing specific, a property that
> is true for everything inside the considered domain.
>
> John Gabriel pretend to draw conclusion about the derivative f' of
> a given function f from the property that:
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) (*)
>
> But as ANY function p shares this property with f' (you just have
> to define Q(x,h) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - p(x) to convince yourself) this
> is definitely IMPOSSIBLE to end up with anything pertinent for f' from
> equation (*).
>
> Same with Professor (very sadly) Wolfgang Mueckenheim, who pretend to
> conclude something from the fact that "xxx is a member of a finite set"
> (xxx being either a end segment of N, a cardinal, whatever, he uses this
> argument all the time). This is utterly stupid of course, as anything is
> a member of a finite set in the first place: consider the set {anything}
>
> This kind of hint who allows to spot that a proof is invalid from its
> very first place is very useful, as well as another hint: if you haven't
> used a key property of an kind of object - say a derivative - in a proof
> of something supposed to be specific to this kind of object, it is very
> very likely to be invalid. This is something I explain quite often to
> students, and they absolutely get the point immediately.
>
> Beside of their lack of ability and lack of integrity, this shows
> clearly that at the root of their crankiness, both Gabriel and
> Mueckenheim suffer a HUGE cognitive dissonance.
Roy masters is a crank that doesn't like math or science.
You are a hypocrite.
Python
Dec 23, 2019, 4:27:49 PM12/23/19
to
is Roy Masters, not even the person who is posting as "Roy Masters".
Roy Masters does not even know what is Usenet. Roy Master is an idiot
of your kind (as you've talking about him I've seen a few of his videos
on YouTube), he is an old paranoid bigot of your kind.
> You are a hypocrite.
You DO are, Mitch, as all bigots are.
Python
Dec 23, 2019, 4:46:40 PM12/23/19
to
Crank Wolfgang Mueckheim sockpuppet, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> Am Montag, 23. Dezember 2019 19:57:55 UTC+1 schrieb Mostowski Collapse:
>
>
>> Corrollary:
>> intersection({E(n)|n e N}) = {},
>
> That is not in question.
>
> In question is the claim that all endsegments are definable:
>
> All endsegments obey the definition E(k+1) = E(k) \ {k} according to which each one is removing only one natnumber.
Crank Wolfgang Mueckheim from Hochschule Augsburg, this does even parse,
> Am Montag, 23. Dezember 2019 19:57:55 UTC+1 schrieb Mostowski Collapse:
>
>
>> Corrollary:
>> intersection({E(n)|n e N}) = {},
>
> That is not in question.
>
> In question is the claim that all endsegments are definable:
>
> All endsegments obey the definition E(k+1) = E(k) \ {k} according to which each one is removing only one natnumber.
not only in English, but in any human language. You do have a huge
cognitive dissonance, Crank Wolfgang Mueckheim from Hochschule Augsburg.
Eram semper recta
Dec 23, 2019, 7:18:05 PM12/23/19
to
On Monday, 23 December 2019 13:38:57 UTC-5, Idiot jan burse aka Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> The bullshit is on your side. You have never
> seen the truth table of OR,
Truth tables have NOTHING to do with deductive reasoning in mathematics.
> The bullshit is on your side. You have never
> seen the truth table of OR,
<drivel>
Sergio
Dec 23, 2019, 7:24:07 PM12/23/19
to
On 12/23/2019 12:38 PM, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> The bullshit is on your side. You have never
> seen the truth table of OR, but you are 58
> years old. LMAO!
>
> Am Montag, 23. Dezember 2019 19:10:47 UTC+1 schrieb Eram semper recta:
>> On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:15:05 PM UTC-5, jan burse aka Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>>> Dream on troll boy. What is 3=<4, invalid?
>>
>> In mathematics we have what is called deductive reasoning. You should read up on it some time, you birdbrain!
>>
>> 3 =< x in mathematics (not your piss-shit FOL) means
>>
>> (3 is less than x) OR (3 is equal to x)
wrong. it means "3 is less than or equal to x"
> The bullshit is on your side. You have never
> seen the truth table of OR, but you are 58
> years old. LMAO!
>
> Am Montag, 23. Dezember 2019 19:10:47 UTC+1 schrieb Eram semper recta:
>> On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:15:05 PM UTC-5, jan burse aka Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>>> Dream on troll boy. What is 3=<4, invalid?
>>
>> In mathematics we have what is called deductive reasoning. You should read up on it some time, you birdbrain!
>>
>> 3 =< x in mathematics (not your piss-shit FOL) means
>>
>> (3 is less than x) OR (3 is equal to x)
try to get the simple stuff correct!
>>
>> That is valid as long as we don't know x. However once we know x, there is no longer a disjunction, that means there is no more "OR". This is as simple as I can explain it to you birdbrain!
>>
>> (3 is less than 4) OR (3 is equal to 4)
>>
>> is utter bullshit because 3 can never be equal to 4.
fault, birdbrain
>> It does not have to be equal to 4, but this part of the disjunction is impossible, hence no more OR.
Homework:
instead of 3 and 4, use -5 and -(-1^(0.5)) and show how =< works
can you handle that? Hmmmmmmm ?
Ganzhinterseher
Dec 24, 2019, 7:30:58 AM12/24/19
to
Am Montag, 23. Dezember 2019 22:46:40 UTC+1 schrieb Python:
> > All endsegments obey the definition E(k+1) = E(k) \ {k} according to which each one is removing only one natnumber.
>
> > All endsegments obey the definition E(k+1) = E(k) \ {k} according to which each one is removing only one natnumber.
>
> this does even parse,
> not only in English, but in any human language.
Well, I would not say it so generally, but with respect to English you are right.
> not only in English, but in any human language.
Regards, WM
Python
Dec 24, 2019, 2:01:29 PM12/24/19
to
Crank Wolfgang Mueckheim sockpuppet, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> Am Montag, 23. Dezember 2019 19:57:55 UTC+1 schrieb Mostowski Collapse:
>
>
>> Corrollary:
>> intersection({E(n)|n e N}) = {},
>
> That is not in question.
>
> In question is the claim that all endsegments are definable:
>
> All endsegments obey the definition E(k+1) = E(k) \ {k} according to which each one is removing only one natnumber.
Crank Wolfgang Mueckheim from Hochschule Augsburg, this does not even
>
>
>> Corrollary:
>> intersection({E(n)|n e N}) = {},
>
> That is not in question.
>
> In question is the claim that all endsegments are definable:
>
> All endsegments obey the definition E(k+1) = E(k) \ {k} according to which each one is removing only one natnumber.
parse, neither in English, nor in any human language. You do have a huge
Mostowski Collapse
Dec 24, 2019, 2:33:23 PM12/24/19
to
forall j E(j+1) = E(j) \ {j} is needed to show:
E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... = {}
it is needed in the lemma ~(k e E(k+1)).
Of course there might be also other proof using other lemmas.
E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... = {}
Of course there might be also other proof using other lemmas.
Eram semper recta
Dec 24, 2019, 2:38:45 PM12/24/19
to
"does not even parse" is not even wrong.
0 new messages